Judges acknowledged that both men had faced compulsion to provide information, but threw out their claim that the right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate oneself are “absolute rights”.

Their judgement noted that people “who choose to keep and drive cars” have implicitly “accepted certain responsibilities” under UK law.

This includes an obligation to name the driver of a vehicle after a road traffic offence has been committed.

The judges also pointed out that UK law made it clear that no offence has been committed if a car owner can prove that he or she did not know, and could not be expected to know, who was driving the vehicle.

Mr Francis said after the verdict: “The fight for freedom goes on. We can’t allow the tyrants, who are taking away our rights, to succeed. They have to be stopped.”

You can read the full legal judgement here

This passage by Judge Pavlovschi is of notable interest.

If the public interest in catching minor offenders (persons committing speeding or parking offences) is so great as to justify limitations on the privilege against self-incrimination, what would be the position when the issue concerned serious offences? Is the public interest in catching those who commit crimes which cost people’s lives less great than in catching those who slightly exceed the speed limit?

In my view it is illogical for persons who have committed minor offences to find themselves in a less favourable situation than those who have committed acts which are truly dangerous to society.

The European Court in Strasbourg will hear evidence that UK motorists’ rights are being undermined by anti-speeding laws. Senior human rights judges will be told that existing laws – which require vehicle owners to disclose who was driving at the time the vehicle was pictured by a speed camera – breach a fundamental tenet of British justice, namely the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial.

If the challenge, brought by the human rights group Liberty against the British government, is successful then it would seriously impair the usefulness of Britain’s 6,000 roadside cameras in catching speeding motorists. Lawyers for Liberty claim that an individual’s ‘right to silence’ is a vital cornerstone of the law.

At the hearing on Wednesday, 17 judges inside the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights will be told that motorists caught speeding by camera have an expectation to be protected by their right to silence.

The case centres on two motorists who objected to their fines. Judges will be told that a vintage Alvis belonging to Idris Francis, 66, was photographed being driven at 47mph in a 30mph area in Surrey in June 2001.

Francis, a retired company director of West Meon, Hampshire, refused to say who was driving and was fined £750 with £250 costs and three penalty points. He complains that being compelled to provide evidence of the offence he was suspected of having committed infringed his right not to incriminate himself.

His 1938 Alvis Speed 25, which was caught on the speed camera, has appeared in the Ruth Rendell Mysteries television series and was driven by Nigel Havers in The Charmer. Whether Francis will drive it to Strasbourg for this week’s hearing has yet to be decided.

The judges will also consider the case of Gerard O’Halloran, 72, from London, who admitted driving a car at 69mph on the M11 in Essex where a temporary speed limit restricted vehicles to 40mph. He later tried to have his statement excluded but was fined £100 for speeding with £150 costs and six penalty points. O’Halloran claims that he was convicted because of a statement he made under threat of a penalty similar to that for the speeding offence.

James Welch, legal director for Liberty, said it was essential that the laws were clarified to protect the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial. Welch added: ‘Clearly there is no human right which allows drivers to travel over legal speed limits.

‘Rather, the principle we are defending is that no one should be forced to convict himself by his own mouth under threat of criminal sanction. Unless we are willing to overlook 300 years of common law, motorists too must have a fair trial in which they are innocent until proven guilty’.’

Campaigners argue that the UK is one of the most difficult countries in Europe in which to maintain a clean driving licence. Nearly a million motorists are on the brink of a ban because they have racked up penalty points, a recent study found. Experts predict that if the challenge to section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is successful, the police’s power to use cameras to catch speeding drivers will be severely curtailed.

The Observer